What is the most effective type of audio-biofeedback for postural motor learning?

Marco Dozza, Lorenzo Chiari, Robert (Bob) Peterka, Conrad Wall, Fay Horak

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

11 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Biofeedback is known to improve postural control and reduce postural sway. However, the effects that different biofeedback modes (coding for more or less complex movement information) may have on postural control improvement are still poorly investigated. In addition, most studies do not take into account the effects of spontaneous motor learning from repetition of a task when investigating biofeedback-induced improvement in postural control. In this study, we compared the effects of four different modes of audio-biofeedback (ABF), including direction and/or magnitude of sway information or just a non-specific-direction alarm, on the postural sway of 13 young healthy adults standing on a continuously rotating surface. Compared to the non-specific-direction alarm, ABF of continuous postural sway direction and/or amplitude resulted in larger postural sway reduction in the beginning of the experiment. However, over time, spontaneous postural motor learning flattened the effects of the different modes of ABF so that the alarm was as effective as more complex information about body sway. Nevertheless, motor learning did not make ABF useless, since all modes of ABF further reduced postural sway, even after subjects learned the task. All modes of ABF resulted in improved multi-segmental control of posture and stabilized the trunk-in-space. Spontaneous motor learning also improved multi-segmental control of posture but not trunk-in-space stabilization as much as ABF. In conclusion, although practice standing on a perturbing surface improved postural stability, the more body sway information provided to subjects using ABF, the greater the additional improvement in postural stability.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)313-319
Number of pages7
JournalGait and Posture
Volume34
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2011

Fingerprint

Learning
Posture
Biofeedback (Psychology)
Young Adult
Direction compound

Keywords

  • Biological feedback control systems
  • Motor learning
  • Perturbed stance
  • Posture control

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Orthopedics and Sports Medicine
  • Rehabilitation
  • Biophysics

Cite this

What is the most effective type of audio-biofeedback for postural motor learning? / Dozza, Marco; Chiari, Lorenzo; Peterka, Robert (Bob); Wall, Conrad; Horak, Fay.

In: Gait and Posture, Vol. 34, No. 3, 07.2011, p. 313-319.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Dozza, Marco ; Chiari, Lorenzo ; Peterka, Robert (Bob) ; Wall, Conrad ; Horak, Fay. / What is the most effective type of audio-biofeedback for postural motor learning?. In: Gait and Posture. 2011 ; Vol. 34, No. 3. pp. 313-319.
@article{c454c13cff214b7a8c5b4ec23a587408,
title = "What is the most effective type of audio-biofeedback for postural motor learning?",
abstract = "Biofeedback is known to improve postural control and reduce postural sway. However, the effects that different biofeedback modes (coding for more or less complex movement information) may have on postural control improvement are still poorly investigated. In addition, most studies do not take into account the effects of spontaneous motor learning from repetition of a task when investigating biofeedback-induced improvement in postural control. In this study, we compared the effects of four different modes of audio-biofeedback (ABF), including direction and/or magnitude of sway information or just a non-specific-direction alarm, on the postural sway of 13 young healthy adults standing on a continuously rotating surface. Compared to the non-specific-direction alarm, ABF of continuous postural sway direction and/or amplitude resulted in larger postural sway reduction in the beginning of the experiment. However, over time, spontaneous postural motor learning flattened the effects of the different modes of ABF so that the alarm was as effective as more complex information about body sway. Nevertheless, motor learning did not make ABF useless, since all modes of ABF further reduced postural sway, even after subjects learned the task. All modes of ABF resulted in improved multi-segmental control of posture and stabilized the trunk-in-space. Spontaneous motor learning also improved multi-segmental control of posture but not trunk-in-space stabilization as much as ABF. In conclusion, although practice standing on a perturbing surface improved postural stability, the more body sway information provided to subjects using ABF, the greater the additional improvement in postural stability.",
keywords = "Biological feedback control systems, Motor learning, Perturbed stance, Posture control",
author = "Marco Dozza and Lorenzo Chiari and Peterka, {Robert (Bob)} and Conrad Wall and Fay Horak",
year = "2011",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.05.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "34",
pages = "313--319",
journal = "Gait and Posture",
issn = "0966-6362",
publisher = "Elsevier",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - What is the most effective type of audio-biofeedback for postural motor learning?

AU - Dozza, Marco

AU - Chiari, Lorenzo

AU - Peterka, Robert (Bob)

AU - Wall, Conrad

AU - Horak, Fay

PY - 2011/7

Y1 - 2011/7

N2 - Biofeedback is known to improve postural control and reduce postural sway. However, the effects that different biofeedback modes (coding for more or less complex movement information) may have on postural control improvement are still poorly investigated. In addition, most studies do not take into account the effects of spontaneous motor learning from repetition of a task when investigating biofeedback-induced improvement in postural control. In this study, we compared the effects of four different modes of audio-biofeedback (ABF), including direction and/or magnitude of sway information or just a non-specific-direction alarm, on the postural sway of 13 young healthy adults standing on a continuously rotating surface. Compared to the non-specific-direction alarm, ABF of continuous postural sway direction and/or amplitude resulted in larger postural sway reduction in the beginning of the experiment. However, over time, spontaneous postural motor learning flattened the effects of the different modes of ABF so that the alarm was as effective as more complex information about body sway. Nevertheless, motor learning did not make ABF useless, since all modes of ABF further reduced postural sway, even after subjects learned the task. All modes of ABF resulted in improved multi-segmental control of posture and stabilized the trunk-in-space. Spontaneous motor learning also improved multi-segmental control of posture but not trunk-in-space stabilization as much as ABF. In conclusion, although practice standing on a perturbing surface improved postural stability, the more body sway information provided to subjects using ABF, the greater the additional improvement in postural stability.

AB - Biofeedback is known to improve postural control and reduce postural sway. However, the effects that different biofeedback modes (coding for more or less complex movement information) may have on postural control improvement are still poorly investigated. In addition, most studies do not take into account the effects of spontaneous motor learning from repetition of a task when investigating biofeedback-induced improvement in postural control. In this study, we compared the effects of four different modes of audio-biofeedback (ABF), including direction and/or magnitude of sway information or just a non-specific-direction alarm, on the postural sway of 13 young healthy adults standing on a continuously rotating surface. Compared to the non-specific-direction alarm, ABF of continuous postural sway direction and/or amplitude resulted in larger postural sway reduction in the beginning of the experiment. However, over time, spontaneous postural motor learning flattened the effects of the different modes of ABF so that the alarm was as effective as more complex information about body sway. Nevertheless, motor learning did not make ABF useless, since all modes of ABF further reduced postural sway, even after subjects learned the task. All modes of ABF resulted in improved multi-segmental control of posture and stabilized the trunk-in-space. Spontaneous motor learning also improved multi-segmental control of posture but not trunk-in-space stabilization as much as ABF. In conclusion, although practice standing on a perturbing surface improved postural stability, the more body sway information provided to subjects using ABF, the greater the additional improvement in postural stability.

KW - Biological feedback control systems

KW - Motor learning

KW - Perturbed stance

KW - Posture control

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=80052408932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=80052408932&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.05.016

DO - 10.1016/j.gaitpost.2011.05.016

M3 - Article

C2 - 21703858

AN - SCOPUS:80052408932

VL - 34

SP - 313

EP - 319

JO - Gait and Posture

JF - Gait and Posture

SN - 0966-6362

IS - 3

ER -